[blackshoe]

Let's not go there, Math. If you wish to ignore Richard's posts, feel free to do so, but just leave it at that. Further posts along the lines of the above will be disapproved.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-20, 08:23, said:

Let's not go there, Math. If you wish to ignore Richard's posts, feel free to do so, but just leave it at that. Further posts along the lines of the above will be disapproved.

FWIW, I didn't consider Math609's post out of line...

[blackshoe]

Okay, fair enough. I'm just trying to nip a potential problem in the bud.

[Math609]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-20, 08:23, said:

Let's not go there, Math. If you wish to ignore Richard's posts, feel free to do so, but just leave it at that. Further posts along the lines of the above will be disapproved.

No problem to quit here. I think I've made my point and I also hope that i've clarified some aspects that might be relevant. But some people don't think so.

But still, I've to say that you took a fully one-sided view when you expressed your opinion regarding some conversation here inside...Not fair conclusion in my opinion and most probably not the right one either.

[hrothgar]

Math609, on 2011-March-20, 09:16, said:

No problem to quit here. I think I've made my point and I also hope that i've clarified some aspects that might be relevant. But some people don't think so.

But still, I've to say that you took a fully one-sided view when you gave your opinion regarding some conversation here inside...Not fair conclusion in my opinion and most probably not the right one either.

It certainly appears as if the world is conspiring against you...

[Math609]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-20, 09:15, said:

Okay, fair enough. I'm just trying to nip a potential problem in the bud.

In the old days I was worried about the China syndrome, but now I’m facing the Ice-cube syndrome: People looking in to the 10%, when evaluating things, and forget about or deliberately boycotting the other 90%.

[blackshoe]

Math609, on 2011-March-20, 11:44, said:

In the old days I was worried about the China syndrome, but now I’m facing the Ice-cube syndrome: People looking in to the 10%, when evaluating things, and forget about or deliberately boycotting the other 90%.

The squeaky wheel gets the shaft. Or something like that.

[bessi2]

The laws should not discriminate against bidding system.. But should it be allowed to play unusual conventions (often designed to be disruptive) and then deviate from them this easily, maybe even psyching, leaving their opponents with no chance of ever catching on ? Maybe it should. I am not saying people play like this, but just that fact that it is OK could hypothetically create such a big problem that the laws would be swiftly changed anyways. I am 100% in agreement with Bobby Wolff on the issue. In my view, the laws should be designed to uphold justice.
This case in point is VERY mild in the context of what I have been discussing. My first impression was that east had gone insane during the bidding (that 3♥bid is just out of this world imo), and had therefore not done much wrong. But should he have corrected his pd's explanation ? In my opinion he should have. Do opponents of this or some other unusual conventions really have to inquire about every possible bid and continuation and then consider the structure of the convention, whether or not it works, and then try to figure out all the nuances of the convention ? After all this south might consider whether east could have Hx in ♥ BINGO, but the tournement ended a week earlier... IMO n-s are clearly at a great disadvantage and suffered cruel consequences. But I am still a little hesitant how to rule. In Iceland, system documentation is extremely lacking. Hardly anyone carries conventions cards, much less any further convention developments. As a result, our directore/committees assess the situation and what has been stated and conclude from that whether players are likely being truthful etc. In this case I 150% believe e-w. East was fully aware that his pd would translate his bid as showing 3+♥. But it is also clear to me that e-w can't have discussed this convention much if at all, other than deciding to play it.
My feeling is to rule that the table result of -420 stands but e-w should recieve about a 1/3 or 1/2 board penalty. However, I would not be reluctant to rule 4♥-50 for both pairs.. But I do think this was a very unfortunate incident because imo nobody at the table did anything terribly wrong..

[Poky]

bluejak, on 2011-March-15, 09:03, said:

In view of the fact that there is no agreement here whether there was MI or not, retaining the deposit is not close and would be a terrible decision.

Well, we can take even another different point of view to proof there's no MI in circumstances given (don't forget, nobody said anything about the 3♥ bid, until the play finished).

As I understood, 2♦ was explained as something like
"Transfer: 5♥ 9-11 or 6+♥ 6-11".

If this is the truth, then the 3♥ bid is completely natural even with a doubleton, by means of general bridge logic (agreement or not, it doesn't matter).
Why? It is very easy to see:
1. it is a jump and jumping is a natural way to show extras, nonetheless is it forcing or not;
2. it is showing an interest to play in the denomination that was bid, that's also completely natural
2a. if responder is weak then the contract will (very often) be 3♥ in 6-2 fit;
2b. if responder has a maximal hand then he cannot pass and he could (and probably should) rebid a natural 3NT with only 5 hearts.

South was careless:
a) by making his own deduction that 3♥ should show 3+ cards in this sequence.
b) by not asking anything about declarer's hand during the play.
c) by playing an inferior defensive line (♠10 before ♦A is a very clear message, as a high diamond returned is).

[gnasher]

Poky, on 2011-March-20, 16:06, said:

South was careless:
a) by making his own deduction that 3♥ should show 3+ cards in this sequence.
b) by not asking anything about declarer's hand during the play.

South did ask about declarer's hand, and he was explicity told that 3♥ shows 3+ hearts. It's in the second paragraph of the original post.

Quote

c) by playing an inferior defensive line (♠10 before ♦A is a very clear message, as a high diamond returned is).

If you know that declarer has 3+ hearts, ♦A is the correct play, because it saves an overtrick when declarer has four hearts.

[Poky]

...

[Poky]

gnasher, on 2011-March-20, 16:23, said:

South did ask about declarer's hand, and he was explicity told that 3♥ shows 3+ hearts. It's in the second paragraph of the original post.

True. I misread it.

Quote

If you know that declarer has 3+ hearts, ♦A is the correct play, because it saves an overtrick when declarer has four hearts.

Not if North gives an echo by playing J-x or T-x of hearts (which is certainly a pretty irrational play with a doubleton).

[Math609]

Poky, on 2011-March-20, 16:35, said:

True. I misread it.

Not if North gives an echo by playing J-x or T-x of hearts (which is certainly a pretty irrational play with a doubleton).

♦A is the correct play (100% play) when you know that declarer has 3+ hearts. I have analysed this before. See post nr. 44

[bluejak]

hrothgar, on 2011-March-18, 12:52, said:

Unless you can prove that the opponent's have a concealed partnership agreement, I don't think that you deserve recourse...

Prove? Rulings, except in disciplinary cases, are based on preponderance of evidence and judging the evidence, not on proof.

Math609, on 2011-March-18, 18:14, said:

We must focus on one thing and underline it with red: Those players who play rare and unusal system must have everything in the clear and beyond any sahadow of doubt. Their opponents are usually in total darkness (one benefit of such system) so that is the price for playing artificilal and unusal system: Every information must be very clear to their oppnents.

This seems like a personal rule you have invented. Sorry, it has no force: people play under the same Laws whether they play complex or simple systems.

Poky, on 2011-March-20, 16:29, said:

...

???

[bessi2]

What about playing conventions/systems without enough having enough grasp to play them/it. Here the defenders have no realistic chance of figuring out the situation given the explanation and their unfamiliarity with their opponent's system.
Given east's statements, it seems clear that the convention was very much undiscussed within the partnership, (another thing the defenders could not foresee). Isn't it an infraction in itself when an unusual convention causes the opponents damage becuase it was undiscussed? I'll leave it to the law experts to answer that one.
It is my contention that when the conventioneers, who themselves are trying to put their opponents out of their comfort zone by creating new situations at the table, provide an explanation not fitting with pd's hand causing damage to their opponents, any and all doubt should go against them. (although I feel more strongly about this when it comes to conventions designed to be disruptive/destructive) Then again I usually feel that way in most such cases, whether or not an unusual convention is involved or not, but I do so more strongly in these cases. And given all the cases I have read, it seems to me that this has indeed been practised by appeals committees, whether or not they admit this is the reason, and even though it is not a written law.. Many appeal cases don't rely solely on the laws but rather the judgment and/or sense of justice of the committee.
Please note that I am not trying to pick on, or discriminate against conventioneers. These are my views on the matter despite being an ardent conventioneer myself, playing a somewhat complex system filled with gadgets and transfers etc. I just feel that full disclosure is necessary for our game especially when it comes to us conventioneers. I feel that anything short of that can create an unfair advantage.

Quote

This seems like a personal rule you have invented. Sorry, it has no force: people play under the same Laws whether they play complex or simple systems.

Given that appeal committee members bring their own views and prejudices to the appeals procedure, and the fact that one committee might easily reach an entirely different conclusion than another, it is difficult to fully accept this assertion. And although this is not a rule, it is a valid view that is not without precedent or supporters.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-20, 08:23, said:

Let's not go there, Math. If you wish to ignore Richard's posts, feel free to do so, but just leave it at that. Further posts along the lines of the above will be disapproved.

Blackshoe is right to discourage ad hominem argument but has he read Brothgar's posts?

[gnasher]

bessi2, on 2011-March-20, 22:35, said:

Isn't it an infraction in itself when an unusual convention causes the opponents damage becuase it was undiscussed?

No, it's not.

bluejak said:

This seems like a personal rule you have invented. Sorry, it has no force: people play under the same Laws whether they play complex or simple systems.

bessi2 said:

Given that appeal committee members bring their own views and prejudices to the appeals procedure, and the fact that one committee might easily reach an entirely different conclusion than another, it is difficult to fully accept this assertion. And although this is not a rule, it is a valid view that is not without precedent or supporters.

Anyone who allows his own prejudices to take precedence over the rules shouldn't sit on an appeals committee.

[gwnn]

nige1, on 2011-March-21, 04:12, said:

(...)Brothgar's posts?

I'm sorry for the off-topic post, but this has gone on too long: his name is spelled Hrothgar.

[hrothgar]

bessi2, on 2011-March-20, 15:50, said:

I am 100% in agreement with Bobby Wolff on the issue. In my view, the laws should be designed to uphold justice.

Thats all fine and dandy, however, Bobby Wolff's theories have very little to do with the Laws of Bridge

Many of us, myself included, are quite happy that Wolff doesn't get to sit on appeals committee's any more.

At the end of the day, his theories of "justice" boil down to, "The Laws be damned, I'm going to do whatever I want"...
I wasn't particularly fond of this theory back in the day when Kaplan was in charge. (I generally agreed with Kaplan's goals, however, from my perspective "consistent process" is the the over riding goal for any system)

I find this theory positively horrific with Wolff trying to set himself up as "Il Duce"...

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2011-March-21, 04:12, said:

Blackshoe is right to discourage ad hominem argument but has he read Brothgar's posts?

I have read no posts by anyone named "Brothgar". And Gwynn is right, that's enough of that.